How to repeat a desired maltose/dextring ration in your mash

Guys,

Which mashing schedule do you think is more reliable in repeating a desired ratio of fermentable vs. non-fermentable sugars? The two schemes I have in mind are a step mash with 2 saccrification rests and a single infusion mash. The rests for the step mash are a maltose rest at ~62C, that is held for a determined amount of time, and a saccrification rest at ~72C, that is held until the iodine test is negative. The single infusion mash is done at a temperature between 63C and 70C and held until the iodine test is negative.

My current understanding of the mashing processes (and what I was told on a German home brewing board) tells me, that it should be easier with the step mash, as the amount of maltose being produced can be adjusted by the time spent at the maltose rest, and what is left, is converted to dextrines during the saccrification rest. This mashing schedule is commonly found in German All Grain (Maische) recipes.

For the single infusion mash, the amount of maltose being generated is determined by the rest temperature. Since it is harder to maintain this temperature, as precisely as necessary to produce a desired maltose contents, than it is to control the duration of a maltose rest, I believe that the step mash should be better in getting a repeatable maltose/dextrines ratio.

What do you think?

Kai

Now you are getting into the high tech aspect of brewing. If you want to make a very specific beer, you need to be critical of each detail. If you liked the way you did the last batch, you need to do every thing EXACTLY the same way.

Anheiser/Bush wants every bottle of Bud to taste exactly like every other bottle of Bud. I don't have that criterium. I guess I'm a beer slob.

That said, I doubt if method is as important as is how accuratly you accomplish the duplication- same water, same recipe, same temp, same time.

casebrew said:

Now you are getting into the high tech aspect of brewing. If you want to make a very specific beer, you need to be critical of each detail. If you liked the way you did the last batch, you need to do every thing EXACTLY the same way.

Click to expand...

And that's what I'm looking for. The challenge to repeat a batch as good as I can and even target a particular FG. This seems important to me since most of my beers will be brew, put more emphasis on malt character than hops.

Looking at the mash procedures available, there seems to be differences in the sensitivity to the process parameters. Two of the major parameters are temperature, time and malt/water ratio. Malt/water ratio is easily controlled for both mash procedures. Temperature needs to exact within about 1F for the single step infusion. But this is difficult to achieve in the cooler set-up that I have. Time, which is controlled much more easily, is the important process parameter for the step mash.

I was looking to find a diagram that shows attenuation levels based on the mash temperature of a single infusion mash. The only thing I found so far is: http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~cswingle/brewing/statistics.php which does not show a predictable pattern for SG/FG based on the mash temperature.

Could I get this table from this forum? You would have to post SG, FG, yeast, and mash temperature. Ideally this experiment would have to be done with using the same yeast, pitching rate and fermentation temperatures.

Kai

I'd interpret Swingley's data a lot differently than he did. I'd say that 154 deg averages 78%, while all others avg 71%. Perhaps a bell-like curve would show him more than the 'trend' line? I suppose the 7% would be pretty significant in 'maltiness' or body of beer.

Bit isn't attenuation the measure of how much available carbs is turned into alcohol? So lower attenuation would mean more maltiness? Higher temps supposed to make more un-fermentables,....so mash at 158 for max malt?

I said I'm a slob... my 'body' has certainly varied. I guess holding mash at +/- 2 degrees could be important....but it has all been good beer!

casebrew said:

Bit isn't attenuation the measure of how much available carbs is turned into alcohol? So lower attenuation would mean more maltiness? Higher temps supposed to make more un-fermentables,....so mash at 158 for max malt?

Click to expand...

That's how I understand it as well. The goal is not juts repeating the presence of body, but the "amount" of body.

I said I'm a slob... my 'body' has certainly varied. I guess holding mash at +/- 2 degrees could be important....but it has all been good beer!

Click to expand...

There is no doubt that good beers will be made by being more relaxed about mashing. I'm also not freaking out about the possibility that I could be off by several gravity points. I just thinking about this to become more familiar with the mashing process

Kai

I just repeated a recipe using two different mash processes and the difference in these two beers is incredible. First batch was a single step, high temp mash and the second batch was a multi-step that was purposely held lower longer. Body, attentuation, clarity, %alcohol, etc are all completely different. As far as getting consistency in your mash, my guess is to use whatever mash method is the most most simple... fewer steps, fewer variables, fewer opportunities for errors. One more comment on attenuation... don't forget to adjust your attentuation calculations for any unfermentables that you may add (i.e. crystal malts).

I'll just throw this out there...
decoction mashes also lend a maltier taste to the brew (or so I've been told). If you're gonna do step mashes why not go all the way and do a decoction mash? Of course, I I doubt that decocotion mashing actually results in more unfermentables.. but the flavor is definitely supposed to be different and some would say better. The next batch I do (this weekend hopefully) will include a couple decoctions. I'll let you know how it goes and what effect, if any, it actually has on the finished product.

As for temp.. yes it has a very noticeable effect in infusion mashing. Change it just a few degrees and the beer will be very different. I planned a cream ale as an easy drinker for friends and neighbors (light on the hops). It turned out great but I had a much higher mash temp then I planned for 158F.. the beer is noticeably thick and almost bittersweet (possibly a result of the corn but I think it also has a lot to do with the mash temp). Good news is I still hit a abv of 6.1% even with a FG of 1.015!

I do agree with you that it's probably easier to exactly replicate a receipe using steps rather than infusion. I've had mixed results hitting the temp I was shooting for using infusion mashes. Of course, if you're bad with math and do a poor job measuring the amount of grain and water you have in the tun and how much your adding then going with a step mash just complicates things further and gives you some additional opportunities to screw up (or at least do things differently than you did last time).

I'm confused here. If you can't hold the temps steady on an infusion mash, then how do you hold the temps steady on a step mash? Seems to me that you have a couple more steps in which to vary your temps in.

I am a control freak. My whole system is set up for control. I like to have control of as many variables as possible, not that I always use them, but it is nice to have the option. I like to do step mashes in my kettle and find I can really get the temps I want this way. Most of the time I do simple single step infusions, but there again I like control. I want to know my strike temps, the grain temp, the pounds to volume ratios. I love my Promash for this. Control Baby!

Lost said:

decoction mashes also lend a maltier taste to the brew (or so I've been told). If you're gonna do step mashes why not go all the way and do a decoction mash? Of course, I I doubt that decocotion mashing actually results in more unfermentables.. but the flavor is definitely supposed to be different and some would say better. The next batch I do (this weekend hopefully) will include a couple decoctions. I'll let you know how it goes and what effect, if any, it actually has on the finished product.

Click to expand...

I have only used decoction for my AG batches so far. But none of them are ready for consumption yet. So I don't have anyting for comparison to my extract batches. But yes, decoction mashes do not result in more unferentables unless you burn the decoction pretty badly.

[qoute]
I do agree with you that it's probably easier to exactly replicate a receipe using steps rather than infusion. I've had mixed results hitting the temp I was shooting for using infusion mashes. Of course, if you're bad with math and do a poor job measuring the amount of grain and water you have in the tun and how much your adding then going with a step mash just complicates things further and gives you some additional opportunities to screw up (or at least do things differently than you did last time).[/quote]

I argue that it is not as important to hit the temps exactly with the alternate step mash that I explained earlier. But that's just theory so far.

Kai

boo boo said:

I'm confused here. If you can't hold the temps steady on an infusion mash, then how do you hold the temps steady on a step mash? Seems to me that you have a couple more steps in which to vary your temps in.

Click to expand...

It's not about holding the temp steady... the cooler does a fine job of that. It's about getting the temp right in the first place. Sometimes it's too hot so I throw in some ice then wait for the temp to stabilize and lo.. it's too cool now so I throw in some hot water and wait again.. hopefully I've got it right at this point and even if I do I've probably wasted 15 minutes screwing around. Anymore I just don't bother with the particulars in an infusion mash.. if it's in the range then it's fine with me. Next time though I'm gonna try a decoction or three.

Kai, yes the temp is more of a range in a step mash but I still worry that I'll miss the range entirely. I'm just not quite sure what effect adding a third of the boiling hot mash back into the tun will have - knowing exactly how much it will raise the temp at a given temp is probably a product of experience which is something I don't have yet. Since you've done it (and sucessfully I presume) you know what to expect and know if its easier or harder than an infusion mash. Frankly though, I expect that it will be harder or else we'd all be starting with decoction mashes. Now, for a pro it does offer more control and, probably, more consistency but as you can tell I'm no pro. Heck, I'm happy with the control AG affords me over the extract brewing methods.. that was definitely a big step up!

Lost said:

Kai, yes the temp is more of a range in a step mash but I still worry that I'll miss the range entirely. I'm just not quite sure what effect adding a third of the boiling hot mash back into the tun will have - knowing exactly how much it will raise the temp at a given temp is probably a product of experience which is something I don't have yet. Since you've done it (and sucessfully I presume) you know what to expect and know if its easier or harder than an infusion mash. Frankly though, I expect that it will be harder or else we'd all be starting with decoction mashes. Now, for a pro it does offer more control and, probably, more consistency but as you can tell I'm no pro. Heck, I'm happy with the control AG affords me over the extract brewing methods.. that was definitely a big step up!

Click to expand...

I use Beersmith to calculate the volume of the decoctions and always add 1 to 2 qts to compensate for evaporation and other factors. It's always easier to cool it down with ice than heating it up with boiling water. And for boiling water you will need another pot.

So far, it wasn't that hard to hit in the temp range. But I miss by 1 to 2 C (2..4F) most of the time and have to correct.

One interesting fact about decoctions is, that they were invented when thermometers weren't available yet. By boiling a predetermined amount of the mash and mixing it back in, brewers were now able to repeat the temperatures of their mash rests more reliably. But now that we have good thermometers, this is not why decoction mashes are still done.

Kai